Too many cooks in the kitchen? “Judge Harter should run his own Courtroom without outside help”

Too many cooks in the kitchen? “Judge Harter should run his own Courtroom without outside help”

Clark County Nevada
October 4, 2014

Often time’s judges want to ignore their job duties and basically let a supposed “neutral” third party try and sift through some issues that the Parties may face in the conflicts they experience with the other side in Family Court.

Judge Mathew Harter regularly uses the “Parental Coordinator” Model so that this special “master” can break down what is going on for the judge, but in reality if the system is broken when the Parental Coordinator violates their own agreement (e.g. not copying both parents on communication, ignoring time-sensitive material until it is too late, etc), should we have judges relying on outside help to make decisions?

It appears it just encourages judges to get lazy and take the “what he/she said” approach to running their courtroom.

(1) The court in which any action is pending may appoint a special master therein. As used in these rules the word “master” includes a referee, an auditor, an examiner and an assessor. The compensation to be allowed to a master shall be fixed by the court, and shall be charged upon such of the parties or paid out of any fund or subject matter of the action, which is in the custody and control of the court as the court may direct. The master shall not retain the master’s report as security for the master’s compensation; but when the party ordered to pay the compensation allowed by the court does not pay it after notice and within the time prescribed by the court, the master is entitled to a writ of execution against the delinquent party.
[As amended; effective January 1, 2005.]
(2) Any party may object to the appointment of any person as a master on one or more of the following grounds:

1. A want of any of the qualifications prescribed by statute to render a person competent as a juror.

2. Consanguinity or affinity within the third degree to either party.

3. Standing in the relation of guardian and ward, master and servant, employer and clerk, or principal and agent to either party, or being a member of the family of either party, or a partner in business with either party, or being security on any bond or obligation for either party.

4. Having served as a juror or been a witness on any trial between the same parties for the same cause of action, or being then a witness in the cause.

5. Interest on the part of such person in the event of the action, or in the main question involved in the action.

6. Having formed or expressed an unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits of the actions.

7. The existence of a state of mind in such person evincing enmity against or bias to either party.

When these masters are appointed, aren’t they in place to protect children or to minimize conflict between the Parties? Isn’t this a sort of paid glorified babysitting?

In at least one case, it appears that inaction on the part of a parental coordinator just empowered the guilty parent to make a mockery out of the judicial system and therefore depriving one minor child out of cheer, a broadcasting class, and other activities. Also, the child’s suicidal threats went ignored until a counselor got involved with the case to prevent a possible suicide of a child? Why didn’t Judge Harter do something other than to ignore one father’s request for help?

Especially when dealing with time sensitive matters such as a parent’s holiday visitation with the children to avoid misunderstandings, parents need as much notice as possible so that the appropriate arrangements can be made and not have last minute decision that further fuels the fire in a child custody situation. This is more the reason that a judge should do their job, foresee some future conflicts, and make orders to protect families. Although deferring issues to a parental coordinator may sound good in theory, in reality, it may not be best for a family.

When a parental coordinator orders that the child cannot have cell phone access when with one parent, how is that in the child’s best interest? Parents play games with their children all the time but all too often; the child is being punished and deprived the opportunity to contact the other parent. With too many parents getting rid of their phone land lines these days, taking the all means of communication – all cell phone – all too often is unacceptable. But when a parental coordinator makes a recommendation that is rubber stamped by a liberal judge, isn’t the judge – and in this case Judge Harter – getting an easier job for someone else doing the hard work and then agreeing with a parental coordinator?

Why would a parental coordinator also order that one parent cannot attend a child’s sporting event when it is the other parent’s “time?” Isn’t attending a school event a public place so how can a liberal judge like Judge Harter accept a parental coordinator’s report that was not in the best interest of the child? Is it too difficult of a concept for a judge to realize that a child deserve love and attention from both parents and what better example is there to have both parents attend an event in which the child participates? The parents can sit on opposite ends of the bleachers but it is just un-American to restrict what a parent can and cannot do in a public place. Thank you Judge Harter for that!

We can’t have any more of these “do nothing” judges on the Family Court bench. Judges should focus on doing their job and as a public servant, to do a good job serving the community.

Veterans in Politics International (VIPI) is no fan of Judge Harter and this is just another example of why Judge Harter has got to go.

Established in 1993: Veterans In Politics International, Inc. Mission is: To educate, organize, and awaken our veterans and their families to select, support and intelligently vote for those candidates whom would help create a better world, to protect ourselves from our own government(s) in a culture of corruption, and to be the political voice for those in other groups who do not have one.